Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (208)
- University of Michigan Law School (198)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (52)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (45)
- Pepperdine University (25)
-
- UIC School of Law (25)
- West Virginia University (25)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (20)
- William & Mary Law School (18)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (17)
- University of Maine School of Law (17)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (15)
- BLR (14)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (14)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (12)
- Roger Williams University (10)
- Georgia State University College of Law (9)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (9)
- University of Colorado Law School (9)
- University of Richmond (9)
- American University Washington College of Law (8)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (8)
- Brigham Young University Law School (7)
- Duke Law (7)
- University of Baltimore Law (7)
- Association of American Law Schools (6)
- Brooklyn Law School (6)
- Georgetown University Law Center (6)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (6)
- The University of Akron (6)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (163)
- Sixth Amendment (82)
- Confrontation Clause (75)
- Testimony (65)
- Constitutional Law (62)
-
- Fifth Amendment (53)
- Admissibility (51)
- Hearsay (51)
- Cross-examination (46)
- Witnesses (46)
- Constitutional law (45)
- Fourth Amendment (45)
- United States Supreme Court (45)
- Crawford v. Washington (35)
- Police (35)
- Constitution (32)
- Self-incrimination (32)
- Exclusionary rule (30)
- Privacy (29)
- Supreme Court (27)
- Testimonial (26)
- New York (24)
- Search and seizure (24)
- Due process (23)
- Warrant (21)
- Criminal procedure (20)
- Fourth amendment (20)
- Confessions (19)
- Law (19)
- Miranda v. Arizona (19)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (206)
- Michigan Law Review (133)
- Touro Law Review (50)
- Articles (43)
- Cardozo Law Review (24)
-
- West Virginia Law Review (24)
- Pepperdine Law Review (23)
- UIC Law Review (23)
- Faculty Scholarship (19)
- Buffalo Law Review (17)
- Maine Law Review (17)
- Indiana Law Journal (14)
- ExpressO (13)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (13)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (12)
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform (10)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (10)
- Georgia State University Law Review (9)
- Publications (9)
- Faculty Works (8)
- University of Richmond Law Review (8)
- BYU Law Review (7)
- Faculty Publications (7)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (7)
- Akron Law Review (6)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (6)
- Journal of Legal Education (6)
- Northwestern University Law Review (6)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (6)
- Supreme Court Case Files (6)
- Publication Type
Articles 511 - 540 of 946
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler
Faculty Scholarship
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Giles V. California: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
In this Essay, Professor Friedman places Giles v. California in the context of the recent transformation of the law governing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contends that a robust doctrine of forfeiture is an integral part of a sound conception of the confrontation right. One reason this is so is that cases fitting within the traditional hearsay exception for dying declarations can be explained as instances of forfeiture. This explanation leads to a simple structure of confrontation law, qualified by the principle that the confrontation right may be waived or forfeited but not subject to genuine exceptions. …
Judges Gone Wild: Why Breaking The Mediation Confidentiality Privilege For Acting In "Bad Faith" Should Be Reevaluated In Court-Ordered Mandatory Mediation, Samara Zimmerman
Judges Gone Wild: Why Breaking The Mediation Confidentiality Privilege For Acting In "Bad Faith" Should Be Reevaluated In Court-Ordered Mandatory Mediation, Samara Zimmerman
Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution
This Note focuses on the reasons why a good faith requirement or a bad faith exception for breaking mediation confidentiality is objectionable and offers an alternative for the Florida court system that, if implemented, could mitigate such disadvantages. I will discuss "the intersection between [a] court-ordered mediation, the confidentiality of which is mandated by law ... and the power of a court to control proceedings," and persons who appear before it by sanctioning conduct that taking place in mediation. Part II of this Note will begin by providing a background to the Doe v. Francis civil case. It will highlight …
Self-Incrimination And The Epistemology Of Testimony, Michael S. Pardo
Self-Incrimination And The Epistemology Of Testimony, Michael S. Pardo
Cardozo Law Review
The Supreme Court's limitation of the privilege against self-incrimination to evidence of a testimonial nature has been controversial. The doctrinal reliance on a distinction between physical and testimonial evidence has proven difficult to apply in practice, and it has been criticized as being descriptively inaccurate, analytically incoherent, and normatively indefensible. This article offers a defense of the distinction on epistemological grounds. The philosophical focus on testimony as a source of knowledge provides some insight into what makes testimony distinct as an epistemic source. These considerations are used to provide a coherent and principled way to distinguish what evidence to treat …
The Right To Silence Helps The Innocent: A Response To Critics, Alex Stein
The Right To Silence Helps The Innocent: A Response To Critics, Alex Stein
Cardozo Law Review
This Article responds to the numerous critics of Daniel J Seidmann & Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege, 114 HARV. L. REV. 430 (2000). Under Seidmann and Stein's theory, the right to silence protects innocents who find themselves unable to corroborate their self-exonerating accounts by verifiable evidence. Absent the right, guilty criminals would pool with innocents by making false self-exonerating statements. Factfinders would consequently discount the probative value of all uncorroborated exculpatory statements, at the expense of those innocents who cannot corroborate their true accounts. The right to …
Haifa University V. Oz, Esther Hayut, Miriam Naor, Dorit Beinisch
Haifa University V. Oz, Esther Hayut, Miriam Naor, Dorit Beinisch
Translated Opinions
Facts: The petitioner employed respondents 1-3 (hereinafter – the respondents) as lecturers in the Theatre Department. Against the background of complaints concerning the management of the department, an Investigative Committee was established, which decided not to renew the employment of respondents 2-3 and to transfer respondent 1 to another department. The Regional Labour Court rejected the respondent's request to order the petitioner to provide them with all of the material relied upon by the Committee, including protocols and testimony, ruling that the material they had received sufficed to allow for an adequate response on the respondents' part to the claims. …
Are Journalists Privileged?: Panel Discussion, Anthony Lewis, Max Frankel, Victor Kovner
Are Journalists Privileged?: Panel Discussion, Anthony Lewis, Max Frankel, Victor Kovner
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Evidence Law, Alex Stein
Presumptions, Inferences, And Strict Liability In Illinois Criminal Law: Preempting The Presumption Of Innocence?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 715 (2008), Theodore A. Gottfried, Peter G. Baroni
Presumptions, Inferences, And Strict Liability In Illinois Criminal Law: Preempting The Presumption Of Innocence?, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 715 (2008), Theodore A. Gottfried, Peter G. Baroni
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth
"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Nontestimonial Declarations Against Penal Interest: Eschewing The Corroboration Requirement For Inculpatory Statements, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 969 (2008), Michael Duffy
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Harnessing The Hired Guns: The Substantive Nature Of Ohio Revised Code 2743.43 Under Article Iv, Section 5(B) Of The Ohio Constitution, Patrick Vrobel
Harnessing The Hired Guns: The Substantive Nature Of Ohio Revised Code 2743.43 Under Article Iv, Section 5(B) Of The Ohio Constitution, Patrick Vrobel
Journal of Law and Health
Under Article IV, Section 5(B), rules of procedure that impact the substantive rights of Ohio citizens are considered far too important to be encroached upon by the judiciary. Rules affecting substantive rights, therefore, have been expressly delegated to the legislature. Because rules that regulate the competency of medical experts inevitably encroach upon the ability of a tort victim to seek redress in a court of law, such rules impact substantive rights in very real and tangible ways. As a result, the medical expert statute must control. To find otherwise would permit the judiciary to encroach upon the substantive rights of …
The 'High Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis, Andrew Ferguson, Damien Bernache
The 'High Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable And Quantifiable Evidence For Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis, Andrew Ferguson, Damien Bernache
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
This article proposes a legal framework to analyze the "high crime area" concept in Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion challenges.Under existing Supreme Court precedent, reviewing courts are allowed to consider that an area is a "high crime area" as a factor to evaluate the reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). However, the Supreme Court has never defined a "high crime area" and lower courts have not reached consensus on a definition. There is no agreement on what a "high-crime area" is, whether it has geographic boundaries, whether it changes over time, whether it …
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman
Is A Forensic Laboratory Report Identifying A Substance As A Narcotic 'Testimonial'?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report, prepared for use in a criminal proceeding and identifying a substance as cocaine, "testimonial" evidence and so subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)?
Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman
Does An Accused Forfeit The Confrontation Right By Murdering A Witness, Absent A Purpose To Render Her Unavailable?, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
If an accused murdered a witness, should he be deemed to have forfeited the right under the Sixth Amendment "to be confronted with" the witness, absent proof that the accused committed the murder for the purpose of rendering her unavailable as a witness?
Please, Let’S Bury The Junk: The Codis Loci And The Revelation Of Private Information, D.H. Kaye
Please, Let’S Bury The Junk: The Codis Loci And The Revelation Of Private Information, D.H. Kaye
NULR Online
No abstract provided.
Is The “Junk” Dna Designation Bunk?, Simon A. Cole
An Uninvited Guest: The Federal Death Penalty And The Massachusetts Prosecution Of Nurse Kristen Gilbert, John P. Cunningham
An Uninvited Guest: The Federal Death Penalty And The Massachusetts Prosecution Of Nurse Kristen Gilbert, John P. Cunningham
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Source-Centric Framework To The Exclusionary Rule, Luke M. Milligan
The Source-Centric Framework To The Exclusionary Rule, Luke M. Milligan
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Sign-Post Without Any Sense Of Direction: The Supreme Court's Dance Around The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine And The Exclusionary Rule In Hudson V. Michigan, David A. Stuart
Pace Law Review
No abstract provided.
Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione
Hudson And Samson: The Roberts Court Confronts Privacy, Dignity, And The Fourth Amendment, John D. Castiglione
ExpressO
This article critically analyzes Samson v. California and Hudson v. Michigan, which were the Roberts Court's first major Fourth Amendment decisions. In Samson, the Court upheld a California law allowing government officials to search parolees without any suspicion of wrongdoing. In Hudson, to the surprise of almost every observer, the Court held that knock-and-announce violations do not carry with them a remedy of exclusion. What was most notable about Hudson was not only that it rejected what every state and every federal court, save one, believed to be the proper remedy for knock-and-announce violations, but that it called into question …
Wiretapping And Eavesdropping: Surveillance In The Internet Age, 3rd Ed., Anne T. Mckenna, Clifford S. Fishman
Wiretapping And Eavesdropping: Surveillance In The Internet Age, 3rd Ed., Anne T. Mckenna, Clifford S. Fishman
Books
The third edition of the seminal “Fishman & McKenna” Wiretapping treatise analyzes federal and state law and the rapidly evolving civil and criminal legal issues and privacy issues surrounding the Internet, computers, cellular devices, electronic location tracking, drones, and biometrics. Since its publication, this treatise has been cited in multiple published federal and state judicial opinions, including by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in August 2010 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in August 2014. The third edition is a well-known resource for attorneys working in private practice and in …
Should Statements Made By Patients During Psychotherapy Fall Within The Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception? An Interdisciplinary Critique, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2007), Philip K. Hamilton
Should Statements Made By Patients During Psychotherapy Fall Within The Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception? An Interdisciplinary Critique, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2007), Philip K. Hamilton
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Cross-Examination Earlier Or Later: When Is It Enough To Satisfy Crawford?, Christopher B. Mueller
Cross-Examination Earlier Or Later: When Is It Enough To Satisfy Crawford?, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Truth, Deterrence, And The Impeachment Exception , James L. Kainen
Faculty Scholarship
James v. Illinois permits illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants, but not defense witnesses. Thus far, all courts have construed James to allow impeachment of defendants' hearsay declarations. This article argues against allowing illegally-obtained evidence to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations because doing so unduly diminishes the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect. The distinction between impeaching defendants and defense witnesses disappears when courts allow prosecutors to impeach defendants' hearsay declarations. Because defense witnesses report exculpatory conduct of a defendant who always has a substantial interest in disguising his criminality, their testimony routinely incorporates defendant hearsay. Defense witness testimony thus routinely paves the way …
Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
I have to say that when I stood up to argue Hammon I felt the wind at my back. I was basically a lawyer with an easy case, and there wasn't anything particularly unpredictable at the argument of Hammon. Now it got a little bit interesting, as I will explain later, because to a certain extent I was trying to argue the other case as well. But Hammon itself was sort of ordinary, normal law.
The (Futile) Search For A Common Law Right Of Confrontation: Beyond Brasier's Irrelevance To (Perhaps) Relevant American Cases, Randolph N. Jonakait
The (Futile) Search For A Common Law Right Of Confrontation: Beyond Brasier's Irrelevance To (Perhaps) Relevant American Cases, Randolph N. Jonakait
Articles & Chapters
After Crawford v. Washington asserted that the Confrontation Clause constitutionalized the common law right of confrontation, cases have been suggested that illustrate that right. This short essay considers whether the 1779 English case Rex v. Brasier is such a decision, as some contend. The essay concludes that Brasier says nothing about the right of confrontation and points to a comparable framing-era, American case that indicates that general rules about hearsay and confrontation were not at issue. The essay maintains that if the historical understandings of the right of confrontation and hearsay are to control the Confrontation Clause, then framing-era, American …
Holmes V. South Carolina Upholds Trial By Jury, Samuel R. Gross
Holmes V. South Carolina Upholds Trial By Jury, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted of a brutal rape-murder and sentenced to death. The only evidence that connected him to the crime was forensic: a palm print, and blood and fiber evidence. (Biological samples taken from the victim for two rape kits were compromised and yielded no identifiable evidence.) Holmes claimed that the state's forensic evidence was planted and mishandled, and that the rape and murder were committed by another man, Jimmy McCaw White. At a pretrial hearing three witnesses testified that they saw White near the victim's house at about the time of the crime, and four others testified …
Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman
Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
So my topic this morning is on forfeiture of the confrontation right, which I think plays a central role in confrontation doctrine. And to try to present that, let me state the entirety of confrontation doctrine as briefly as I can. This is, at least, what I think the doctrine is and what it can be: A testimonial statement should not be admissible against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused either has had or will have an opportunity to confront the witness-which should occur at trial unless the witness is then unavailable-or has …